1. ILC TRANSPORT AND INSTALLATION Questions from last CES: Beam height explanation, Transport implications of sloping access tunnels proposed for access to underground areas of Asian site. Acknowledgements: Jerry Leibfritz, FNAL David Smekens, CERN Caterina Bertone, CERN Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 20091

2. Reason for the (relatively high) height of the cryomodules above the floor (1) Response from Jerry Leibfritz, FNAL (1) This is what is used at DESY for FLASH and CMTS, and also at the Fermilab ILCTA. It is based on the large support girder that sits underneath the first and last cryomodules of a string to counteract the large vacuum load and prevent movement of the cryomodule. The support stand sits on top of this girder. Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 2009 2

3. Picture of the first cryomodule on its green support girders at Fermilab. ( cryogenic components not installed ) Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 20093

4. Reason for the (relatively high) height of the cryomodules above the floor (2) Response from Jerry Leibfritz, FNAL (continued) The cryogenic feedbox and endcaps are designed for this elevation and it would have been too expensive for us at Fermilab to redesign this, so we used basically the same design as DESY. When we were initially laying out the ILC tunnel, we tried to maximize the use of space, so we set the elevation of the cryomodule to be in the widest part of the diameter of the tunnel, allowing us to move it as close to the wall as possible. For a machine as big as the ILC, these components could be redesigned, so the cryomodule sits lower, but it would require some engineering effort. Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 2009 4

5. SLOPES… Effect of slope on vehicle design: Need more traction force Cooling of motors (duty factor) Need more braking force Cooling of brakes Space Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 20095

6. Asian site Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 20096

7. CLIC longitudinal section Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 20097

8. CLIC access ramp tunnel summary Figures based on CLIC Longitudinal section drawing data. Access Point Number1153 upper height (m)425395391 lower height (m)358.7350 delta h (m)66.34541 slope (%)878 length (m)829643513 Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 20098

9. NOTES ON SLOPES Standard electric vehicles Typically 1.5-2% slope for continuous use at full rated load with increased slope the load capacity or the use factor reduces. (see performance chart) Encyclopedie de la Manutention “rampe ≥ 7% = problème délicate” (this is with unbraked trailers) Effect of 2% slope is to double traction force needed compared with horizontal surface. Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 20099

10. 10

11. Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 200911

12. Example on effect of slope In the example a tractor with a nominal towing capacity of 20 tonnes can be used on a 7% slope to tow a 6 tonne trailer a maximum of 3500m in one hour. Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 200912

13. Other slope experience at CERN Vehicles for LHC warm magnet installation: Specified max slope 12% for short distances. During testing on 7% slope (several passes) overheated after approx 1hour. Special purpose fork lift: customised for 14% slope (needed continuous forced ventilation for brakes and motors) Difficult to find supplier willing to do this. Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 200913

14. Slope conclusions General comments at this stage: 1.5 - 2% slope means can use standard vehicles (lowest cost most reliable solution) Up to 7 or 8% slope achievable by reducing capacity to approx one third of nominal (space issues?). Any steeper slopes will mean that it becomes more difficult to use standard equipment –this will have cost and reliability implications. What are slope options for Asian site? Keith Kershaw, EN-HE CERN CES 11 March 200914